"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab at lojban.org> wrote in message
news:ngccmug1jeev23a3b486dapo8olh6rdlac at 4ax.com...
>johnknight at usa.com (John Knight) wrote:
> >The POINT is that the only reason the 9 men who outperformed this
> >fellow officer by more than 30% did NOT get a Gold Medal is *because*
> >they were MEN. No other reason.
>> No. The reason that they did not get a gold medal, is that they did
> not win their competition.
>
The little sleight of hand by the jewish media, the one that "confuses"
women like you, the reason you get to "think" that "men and women are of
equal intelligence" or "women are more intelligent than men", is that it
appears on TV that "their competition" was one and the same, that women got
Gold Medals because they performed *better* than the men.
These different competitions should be held years and miles apart so couch
potatoes like me don't have so much difficulty recognizing the 30-50%
difference between men and women in ALL human activities, even
"intellectual" activities.
> >The only reason this fellow officer got a Gold Medal even though 9
> >other contestants outperformed her by a large margin is *because* she
> >is a woman. No other reason.
>> No. The reason is that she won her competition. She was not
> competing with the men. It was an entirely separate event, held on a
> different day, perhaps even with different judges, judging to
> different standards.
>
This is a LIE, and you know it. The judges are the same, the standards are
the same, and they are held way too close in geography and time to be
considered separate events.
Just like the place on golf courses where the women get the advantage over
men is marked by a little white spot, Olympics events and prizes need to be
distinguised from each other. If a man who scores 32% higher than a woman
deserves the Gold Medal, and a man who scores 31% higher deserves the Silver
Medal, and a man who scores 30.5% higher deserves the Bronze Medal, then the
top woman deserves the Wood Medal, the second highest woman deserves the
Plastic Medal, and the third highest woman deserves the Styrofoam Medal.
We could even offer the little Einsteins the Paper Medal.
Even that over-represents the real difference in skills and abilities, but
at least it would be more equitable, wouldn't you say?
> >This is plain and simple *sexual discrimination*, and nothing else.
>> Well, duh. Having separate events for men and women is a form of
> segregation, which in turn is a form of discrimination.
>
Well, duh, regardless of what you "liberals" "think", "sexual
discrimination" is a GOOD thing if it removes the incompetents from the
playing fields, industries, government agencies and our once-fine
institutions.
But when it's used to denigrate the real Gold Medalists from ALL walks of
life, all the way from lumberjacking to airline piloting to garabage truck
driving, it's amoral, unconstitutional, counterproductive, and now ILLegal,
thanks to Proposition 209.
> >What exactly do you think was accomplished by this *sexual
> >discrimination*?
>> Depends on what precisely we are talking about in referring to the
> "accomplishments" of Olympic competition in the first place.
>
It did nothing but trivialize the accomplishements of the REAL winners in
life. It put a woman lab flunky like Marie Curie on the same stage as
Pierre Curie and Jacques Curie and Henri Becquerel and Wilhelm C. Röntgen
and Henri Poincaré and Edmond Becquerel and G. Schmidt and Ernest
Rutherford and P. Villard and André Debierne and William Crookes. It put
men Gold Medalists on the same stage as women "Gold Medalists" even though
they outperformed these women by light-years.
It did not improve the image of women. It made them look cheap. It made
them look like little children next to the men who really broke the records.
It discredited the spirit of competition and demoralized and trivialized the
men.
> > Were American women somehow improved by giving a
> >Gold Medal to someone who didn't even come close to the 9 men?
>> Was the purpose to improve American women? I don't think so. The
> purpose was to award the winner of a competition, one in which the 9
> men did not compete.
>
You may be right. The purpose probably was NOT to "improve American [or any
other] women". The purpose may have been to denigrate her by comparing her
weakness against the strength of men, which is of course all it did.
But for men, the purpose of the Olympics WAS to improve them, in every way,
not just in athletics. And this STILL happens, even with this trivial
little side show with women.
> >No. Was it fair to the men? Absolutely not.
>> I have no idea why you say this. If they had not had a separate event
> for women, women would likely not have gotten a gold medal, that is
> true. But no more men would have gotten a gold medal.
>
Of course you don't understand it, which is why things like "affirmative
action" are so abjectly amoral. You cannot give EXACTLY the same award to a
third class participant that you give to the TOP participant, when there are
thousands of higher performing individuals in between who DESERVE no less of
an award than the woman.
What's the difference between this and saying that we're going to have
separate basketball events for honkeys and muds, and give a Gold Medal to
both groups: the short little honkeys who can't even jump, and the 9 foot
niggers?
Can you even imagine the rationale for doing that? No. So why should women
be given this special privilege? Why continue this double standard if you
can't even think of why it should have happened in the first place.
They should not be. It only propagates the great American myth that "women
are more intelligent than men".
> >Did it enhance or enrich the
> >Olympic events in some way? No, if anything, it discredited them.
>> Only to a nincompoop like you.
>
Deep down inside, even nincompoops like you agree.
> >You can't name one single benefit from this *sexual discrimination*,
> >can you? You know that there were many problems with it, but we know
> >that you can't name a single off-setting benefit to anyone.
>> The benefit, so far as I know, is to promote the love of sport and
> competition among both men and women. That is the stated purpose of
> the Olympics.
>
If you don't think that men at the Olympics don't resent this double
standard, then you can't possibly understand what this did to the morale of
BOTH men and women contestants.
> So far as I know, I haven't heard of any country calling for the
> elimination of separate mens and women's competitions. I don't expect
> to, either.
>> lojbab
Then we should be the first, shouldn't we?
John Knight
